Analysis of right anterolateral impacts: the effect of head rotation on the cervical muscle whiplash response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The cervical muscles are considered a potential site of whiplash injury, and there are many impact scenarios for whiplash injury. There is a need to understand the cervical muscle response under non-conventional whiplash impact scenarios, including variable head position and impact direction. METHODS: Twenty healthy volunteers underwent right anterolateral impacts of 4.0, 7.6, 10.7, and 13.0 m/s2 peak acceleration, each with the head rotated to the left, then the head rotated to the right in a random order of impact severities. Bilateral electromyograms of the sternocleidomastoids, trapezii, and splenii capitis following impact were measured. RESULTS: At a peak acceleration of 13.0 m/s2, with the head rotated to the right, the right trapezius generated 61% of its maximal voluntary contraction electromyogram (MVC EMG), while all other muscles generated 31% or less of this variable (31% for the left trapezius, 13% for the right spleinus. capitis, and 16% for the left splenius capitis). The sternocleidomastoids muscles also tended to show an asymmetric EMG response, with the left sternocleidomastoid (the one responsible for head rotation to the right) generating a higher percentage (26%) of its MVC EMG than the left sternocleidomastoid (4%) (p < 0.05). When the head is rotated to the left, under these same conditions, the results are reversed even though the impact direction remains right anterolateral. CONCLUSION: The EMG response to a right anterolateral impact is highly dependent on the head position. The sternocleidomastoid responsible for the direction of head rotation and the trapezius ipsilateral to the direction of head rotation generate the most EMG activity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".